Article 32- Empowering Judicial Review By The Supreme Court Of India

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution, which embodies the ideas and tenets upon which the country is based, is the ultimate legislation of India's democratic system. A crucial component of preserving the balance of power and safeguarding individuals' rights is ensuring that the values stated in the Constitution are respected and protected. The Indian Constitution's Article 32, which gives the Supreme Court the authority of judicial review, is one of the most effective instruments for defending fundamental ideals. In order to give the Supreme Court the authority to maintain the Constitution and safeguard people' rights, this article explores the meaning, reach, and ramifications of Article 32.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 32

The Indian Constitution's Article 32 states: "The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part (Part III) is guaranteed." Fundamental rights are outlined in Part III of the Constitution and are regarded as sacred and untouchable. Since the Supreme Court is now empowered to protect these fundamental rights under Article 32, any person may approach the court immediately if their rights are violated or endangered.

Scope of Judicial Review- The Supreme Court is able to assess whether legislation, executive orders, and acts taken by the federal and state governments are constitutional because to the judicial review authority granted to it by Article 32. This authority includes looking at private entity acts as well, particularly if they violate basic rights. It is not just confined to reviewing legislative and executive actions.

The spectrum of topics covered by judicial review under Article 32 includes:

• Legislative Review: The Supreme Court has the authority to review legislation enacted by the federal government and state legislatures to make sure that it does not infringe upon the basic freedoms protected by Part III of the Constitution. A statute may be overturned by the court if it is determined to be unconstitutional.
• Executive Actions: To make sure they adhere to the Constitution, the court can examine executive decisions, guidelines, and directives. This stops the executive branch from abusing its power and disrespecting the rights of the people.
• Enforcement of Fundamental Rights: Article 32 gives the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs such quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and mandamus. These writs are effective weapons for safeguarding individuals' basic rights and holding government officials responsible.
• Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Article 32 had a significant role in broadening the definition of PIL by enabling individuals and non-governmental organizations to petition the court on behalf of disadvantaged and marginalized groups in society. This has made it possible for the court to deal with a variety of societal concerns.
• Protection of Minorities: The Supreme Court has the authority to step in and uphold the secularism and equal protection tenets when minorities' rights are being trampled upon.
• Protection of the environment: The court has utilized its authority under Article 32 to address environmental issues and defend the right to a safe and healthy environment.

LANDMARK CASES

The crucial part that Article 32 plays in defending people' rights and preserving the Constitution has been underscored by a number of significant cases:

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): In this case, it was established that the Constitution's "Basic Structure" cannot be changed by constitutional changes. Article 32 gives the court the authority to examine changes and to invalidate them if they go against the fundamental framework.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): This case made clear that various dimensions of a person's liberty, in addition to bodily freedom, are covered by the right to personal liberty (Article 21). The court ruled that laws must be followed in a fair and reasonable manner.
• In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court established rules for dealing with sexual harassment at work, demonstrating the court's dedication to safeguarding the rights and dignity of women.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): This case emphasized the value of the court's judicial review authority in matters of transparency and good governance. Due to the court's involvement, coal block allocations that were deemed to be arbitrary and opaque were revoked.

BALANCING JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNITY

Although the idea of judicial review is essential for maintaining the Constitution and protecting individuals' rights, it does raise questions regarding possible inconsistencies with the notion of legislative sovereignty. The Indian Constitution is characterized by parliamentary sovereignty, which means that the legislative branch is the paramount power in its domain. However, the Supreme Court's ability to conduct judicial reviews under Article 32 occasionally comes seen as encroaching on the authority of the legislative and executive branches.

The fundamental tenet of democratic government, the separation of powers, sits at the center of the issue. The purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee checks and balances and to clearly define the roles and authority of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Although this division is essential to prevent dictatorship and the abuse of power, it also raises the possibility of conflict between the branches.

Extensive judicial review has its detractors who contend that it may cause conflict between the judiciary and the people's elected officials. They argue that because judges are appointed rather than elected, they may interfere excessively with the democratic government's ability to make policy choices, eroding the separation of powers.

However, the judiciary's ability to conduct judicial reviews is meant to serve as a check on the activities of the legislative and the administration, not to replace them. The three pillars of government are required to coexist in harmony under the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court's job is to make sure that the other arms of government are acting in a way that upholds the Constitution and protects citizens' basic rights.

CONCLUSION

The Indian Constitution's Article 32 serves as a safeguard against the unjust use of authority and the infringement of basic rights. It gives the Supreme Court the authority to uphold and defend the Constitution's tenets and rights as the document's supreme defender. The ability of judicial review under Article 32 has developed through time to handle modern issues while adhering to the fundamental values of the Constitution. Article 32 was intended by the Constitution's drafters as a way for people to directly seek justice when their rights are violated, and the court's steadfast adherence to this idea has strengthened India's democratic fabric. Although there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the separation of powers, a strong democracy depends on the judiciary's ability to defend the Constitution and protect basic rights.The ability of judicial review guarantees that the Constitution remains a living document that adapts to shifting circumstances while keeping its essential ideals in a diverse and dynamic nation like India, where societal norms and values vary. The Supreme Court has demonstrated its commitment to justice, fairness, and the defense of individual rights by exercising its Article 32 authority with vigilance.